JUDGMENT 1. - The common question involved in both the special appeals is 1 whether the Land Acquisition Officer (Additional Collector, Chittorgarh) was right in granting interest at the rate of 6% per annum while making the award dated 14.10.1981. Hence, both the appeals are disposed of by common order. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 5 State of Rajasthan issued a Notification dated 27.3.1976 under section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the land in public interest for establishing a new Krishi Upaj Mandi at Nimbahera. The Acquisition Officer made an award on 14.10.1981. Since the payment was delayed. Land Acquisition Officer ordered payment of interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 6%. Admittedly, no reference was made by either of Me parties under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The State of Rajasthan filed a writ petition seeking direction to modify the award of the Land Acquisition Officer by reducing the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 4% per annum in accordance with Section 34 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. This writ 15 petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/1985. The learned Single Judge (Hon. P.K. Palli, J. as his lordship then was) allowed the writ petition by order dated 10.11.1994 and quashed the award to the extent it was contrary to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved of the said judgment, the claimants Pan Bai and others have preferred special appeal, which has been registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 182/2002. 3. The same award on the same ground with the same prayer to the effect that to reduce the amount of interest from 6% to 4% per annum was also challenged by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti by way of filing a writ petition, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1717/1984. In fact this writ petition was preferred earlier than the writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan referred to above. Be that as it may, the writ petition filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.1996, which reads as follows: "Taking into consideration the various circumstances, the petition is 30 not worth interference. In fact this writ petition was preferred earlier than the writ petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan referred to above. Be that as it may, the writ petition filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.1996, which reads as follows: "Taking into consideration the various circumstances, the petition is 30 not worth interference. Hence, dismissed." The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti being aggrieved of the said order has preferred special appeal which has been registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 495/1996. 4. It is contended by Mr. Bhansali that Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act provides interest on compensation only at a rate of 4% per annum from the time of taking possession. As such the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to award compensation beyond 4% per annum. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Suresh Shrimalee learned counsel appearing for the claimants that as there was a delay in payment of compensation the Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the interest at the rate of 6% instead of 4%. The learned counsel relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in S.J. Aggarwal v. Karji Narayanbhai & Ors., AIR 1980 SC page 1611 : Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shandeo v. State of Bihar & Ors.. 1999(8) SCC page 16 and Mohammad Swalleh & Ors. v. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut & Anr., 1988(1) SCC page 40 submits that the High Court will not interfere with the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, if it is valid and proper despite lack of jurisdiction. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. We have gone through all the three judgments referred to by Mr. Shrimalee. The aforesaid cases have proceeded on their own facts. In none of the cases, there was any violation of the statutory provisions. There could be no dispute to the general proposition laid down in the said cases, but it has no application to the facts of the instant case. 5. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: "34. payment of interest. In none of the cases, there was any violation of the statutory provisions. There could be no dispute to the general proposition laid down in the said cases, but it has no application to the facts of the instant case. 5. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: "34. payment of interest. When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest there on at the rate of four per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited." 6. A bare reading of the provision clearly shows that the Collector shall have no jurisdiction to award interest on the award amount at the rate of more than 4% per annum. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer clearly exceeded the jurisdiction by awarding the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. In view of this the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/1985 by order dated 10.11.1994 and modified the award by reducing the interest from 6% to 4% per annum. For the same reason, the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1717/1984 has committed a gross illegality in dismissing the writ petition. 7. Consequently, the Special Appeal No. 182/2002 filed by Pan Bai & Ors. is dismissed being devoid of merit. The Special Appeal No. 495/1996 filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nimbahera is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.5.1996 is set aside. The writ petition No. 1717/1984 is allowed. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 14.10.1981 is modified by reducing the interest from 6% per annum to 4% per annum from the date of taking possession. No order as to cost. *******